Re: Revised Bacula license

["Kern Sibbald" <kern@sibbald.com>]

> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> forwarded:
>> Linking:
>> Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL,
>> or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are
>> required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of
>> those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely
>> available to the public.
>
> Licence proliferation suggestion: use something similar to the
> FSF's OpenSSL permission.  Here is one from Wget I have here:
>
> In addition, as a special exception, the Free Software Foundation
> gives permission to link the code of its release of Wget with the
> OpenSSL project's "OpenSSL" library (or with modified versions of it
> that use the same license as the "OpenSSL" library), and distribute
> the linked executables.  You must obey the GNU General Public License
> in all respects for all of the code used other than "OpenSSL".  If you
> modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the
> file, but you are not obligated to do so.  If you do not wish to do
> so, delete this exception statement from your version.
>
>
> Not that I think yours is bad, but I think this could be combined
> with others using the same phrasing more easily.
>
> +1 to comments about non-OpenSSL-permitting code uncertainty.

Thanks for the comments. As long as what I currently have is acceptable, I
think I will stay with it, because it isn't clear to me that I have any
permission from the Free Software Foundation, and because I'd rather focus
on programming than the license.




Best regards, Kern